Windows 10

The reason I say if. Again we will have to see.

 

MS did say DX12 permits programmers to better integrate into the system O/S thus improving system performance. And yeap that is to be seen but if true would be a great help to Gamers and Video programers.

 

Right but it has to be converted too then DX12 for the advantages, mine is I want to see if present DX11 offerings run better, w/o any code changes, under DX12 than present DX11 as the prior post seems to make.

 

Does anyone use latest Win10 build? Did they finalyy deleted gimped Start Menu?

 

I only plan to upgrade when it's absolutely necessary. For that to happen, they'd have to release a new DX and force it to be W10 only (which appears plausible?)

 

And it has to be implemented. If nothing uses the new DX, or very little, there may not be the must have drive needed to get people to convert.

 

For sure, but I would bet that as soon as a new DX comes out, developers and hardware manufacturers will be all over it as a money-making scheme.

 

DX12 is good for CPU-limited situations. Unless I see gaming performance comparisons with +5% and more on a I7-4770K in old DX10 and Dx11 games I don't buy it... even for free... or I buy for free but not jump on it... yeah

 

I don't know; hardware support will be there soon, but there probably won't be many games that require it for awhile. IIRC, Shattered Union was the first DX 10 exclusive game, and it came out two years after DX10; Just Cause 2 was one of the next and it came out three years after DX 10. With DX 11, the lag was less, but it looks like Battlefield 3 was about the first game to come out that required DX 11, and wouldn't run in DX9 or DX10 mode - and that was about two years after DX11 came out.

So to get the latest features, yeah, you might want to upgrade. But if Windows 10 comes out this fall, it'll probably be until fall 2017 until you're seeing commercial games that won't run with only DX 11.

Granted, if Microsoft's free-for-Windows-7-and-8-non-Enterprise upgrade works wonders, that might be accelerated. And that might happen.

Supporting exclusively DX 12, at least for the near future, will actually be a money-losing scheme for developers, as they'd lose out on customers who didn't have Windows 10. It's the same reason that, despite pioneering DX 10 support, Crysis still supported DirectX 9.

 

The original Company of Heroes was the first game to get DX10 support added. Stormrise (2009) was the first DX10 exclusive game. BF3 was DX10/DX11.

 

I was thinking the other day, what if MS released a completely different Win 10, which doesn't include any of the new features, we know about. It'll be fun

 

Thing is I had been giving them feedback from the first install, that is to up the ante on the desktop. Funny thing is they have done just the opposite. Since like in Windows 8.0 and 8.1 my requests seem to be ignored then why should I try further? As they say "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice and shame on me"!

In the end I feel I have been lied to yet again. Thing is I expected that this time around. I just wonder whose heads will roll this time and how many have to roll before they get a clue? Then again this holograph thing may be the OS save grace but we again shall see.

 

Microsoft are trying to win back the business sector they don't really care about home users, win 8 and 8.1 failed miserably in that sector to the point they are distancing themselves from, personally I think win 8 is the worst OS they've brought to the market and 8.1 not a great deal better.

I'll be giving win 10 a real go when it's released and if it's it not free I'll buy it, I meet a lot of people transitioning to win8 and 8.1 and I've yet to find anybody that's happy with it, took me months to make 8/8.1 an easy to use OS on my own laptop and desktops.

 

Excellent point. I see all this babble, coming out of Microsoft, of course, but also from other places, about how things are different now, and how they are listening this time. Thing is, I do not see a single piece of evidence, none at all, that would show that they are listening. The did throw us the bone of a rudimentary Start Menu, yes, initially, but that has become worse over time. People had been asking for a fully functional Start Menu. Instead, they removed features. So, who did they listen to on this one?
They have now gone and eliminated transparency altogether. What people had been asking for is the return of Aero. Again, who did they listen to?
Skydrive has become a total mess by now, with important features eliminated. People had been asking for an improved Skydrive, oops, OneDrive. Or whatever it's currently called. Who was it they listened to in this case?

Long story short, no, they are not listening, at least not that we can see. Who knows, perhaps the very next preview release will fix all that's wrong, but I won't hold my breath.

 

I'm happy with it.

 

I really fail to understand why do you people blame Microsoft so much. Windows 7 was faster than Vista. Windows 8... OK, Windows 8 was complete failure, but Windows 8.1 is good enough, and faster than 7. They may be a bit different in terms of interface, but the fact that newer OS version is working faster on same hardware is actually good, isn't it? It also makes you wonder what were they thinking when developing those older-slower versions, but that's another story. And related to Windows Vista and prior, modern Windows are rock-stable. You don't have to reinstall it every year to keep it running well, you don't face BSODs out of nowhere all the time, updates don't lead to system corruption, etc. Bottom line is, Windows ain't perfect, but, in my opinion, it's best we've got, and it keeps getting better.

 

I know many who would take issue with your claim of Windows 8.1 being faster than 7, particularly in CPU benchmarks where it seems to do especially poorly.

 

octiceps, I made my assumption on tests where 8.1 was benchmarked to load certain applications faster while delivering same fps in games, and the fact that it boots faster than 7. You're welcome to correct me if I'm wrong and/or those test were fake.

 

The new proclamation "It's Windows and it may not be what you asked for but it just may be good enough!"

Edit; if they are going to give it away for free it is the consumer they want. This way later they hope to make money from the "Store".

 

The vast majority of my work programs don't run under Win8, I can't imagine Win10 will be of any use to me.

 

Well, Vista is actually very stable in its current form, and has been for the longest time. It's the original RTM version that was quite buggy, along with several things that had nothing to do with the OS itself. Also, when I think about "rock-stable" the first OS that comes to mind is W2K, not any of the newer releases.

Whether W8.x is better than W7 depends entirely on one's needs. For *my own set of circumstances*, it's not.

As for W10...all the changes that MS is flipping around from one build to another makes me wonder whether they actually have a workable concept in mind, but I'll give it a benefit of a doubt until I get to test the final version.

My $0.02 only...

 

TANWare, major part of our planet, both territory and population-wise, noone actually bothers with paying for software, at least for personal use. And I didn't say people shouldn't blame Microsoft at all, just presented other side of the medal.

 

What kind of work programs? We've been deploying Win8.1 at work, and so far I have had absolutely zero compatibility complaints, and this is spread over multiple departments including various engineering teams.

 

Because with latest TP I simply don't know where to start.
And that's after I spent >30 minutes and 6 feedbacks just to send 1 on TP 9777.

I must say that some my complaints were satisfied but looking at that garbage with single Start Menu I get that it's useless hence it's like a train going to wrong direction. You can't revert him with small turns. Train should turn AROUND.

P.S. Anytime I booted January TP I was like... F__k it. I don't even know where to start, what to do with it. They don't pay me just for using it.

MS should use Intel's Tick- Tack-Tock scheme then.
Tick - increased speed, responsiveness and performance of payed new OS.
Tock - rebuilt design and features as free upgrade.
If not all people jump on it then Next Tick version will get improved speed and disabled corresponding part of new design and bugs... ooops, I meant features.

 

Mostly software from Rockwell Automation: RSLogix 5000, FactoryTalk View Studio 6, 7 & 8. Hell, they just got full Win7 support 3-4 years ago. As a controls engineer I am always 4-5 years behind when it comes to Windows OS. When I bought my Dell M4500 I picked it specifically because it was a workstation that supported WinXP. I ran WinXP on it for the first 2 years I had the thing. WinXP and 8 MB of RAM that couldn't be fully used.

Not only will the above mentioned software not run on Win8, if I somehow were able to get it to run Rockwell would not support it. It is what it is and the bulk of my income derives from the above software. I could probably get around it by running Win7 in a VM. I do that now to keep different software from "polluting" the system with their stuff. It's almost like they go to war with each other.

Examples:
Melsoft GX Works 2, GT Works 3
Omron CX-One
Pro-face GP Pro EX
PanelBuilder
Various vendor supplied software setup tools.

 

8 MB of RAM?

 

Interesting. My engineers use a variety of CAD and PCB design tools and they are all certified for Win8+. I don't even know the full scope of the apps they use (they tend to load stuff after we give the machines to them) but yeah, nobody has come to us asking for a different Windows. This company is relatively new, so the tools they use tend to be brought in by choices made in the last few years. Maybe that gives them a certain advantage in not being stuck using particular apps long-term.

 

This is a good article detailing all the new MS stuff coming out including lots of stuff for Windows 10: http://www.techradar.com/us/news/so...-release-date-price-news-and-features-1029245

And also here an interesting quote from Nadella: http://www.techradar.com/us/news/so...ms/satya-nadella-windows-10-interview-1282205

" The free Windows 10 upgrade isn't about giving Windows away (especially to companies); it's more about making sure Windows 7 doesn't turn into another Windows XP, hanging around for years. "There are two things we are really focused on; one is to really make sure Windows 10 is a fantastic upgrade experience for even Windows 7 customers, even on the desktop with a mouse and keyboard. It's familiar but you can get all this new value. And then we hope that one year promotional offer really helps a lot of Windows 7 customers move over.""

At least they acknowledge the fail that is Windows 8. I like that he says... "Windows 10 is a fantastic upgrade.... even on a desktop with a keyboard. It's familiar..."

 

Imagine: Dx9 era. Then MS decides to make DX10 where Dx10 games are not compatible with Dx9 computers and game can't be both Dx9-10. Dx10 games pay royalties to MS, are faster BUT has no Antialiasing (again, just imagine). After every 2nd gamer put balls on WinGamingShop MS creates Dx10.1, 10.1 Update 2 and then finally Technical Preview of Dx12 (why no Dx11?) with Master Chief in EVERY Dx12 game (optional for game developers) and with just FXAA and promises about MSAA for AA lovers.
Many gamers decide to buy this trick and then comes January Technical Preview of DX12 without FXAA but with only SSAA (which people did by hacking monitor drivers anyway) and Nadella claims it is best and fastest DX EVAR.

 

I wonder, will there be a possibility to grab the upgrade without installing OS. I currently have 3 unused Windows licenses (7/8/8.1), it would be really neat if I could upgrade those two 8 OSes to 10 without installing them.

 

If a customer has Allen-Bradly hardware, then Rockwell Automation software is the only choice as it is propitiatory. A one year license cost me $4,800 this year, which is freaking pricey.

 

" The free Windows 10 upgrade isn't about giving Windows away (especially to companies); it's more about making sure Windows 7 doesn't turn into another Windows XP, hanging around for years."

This assumes that the following version(s) are even accepted as well as Vista and then Windows 7. Vista eventually became a stable and well accepted OS. Without saying Windows 7 just blew away all prior x86 operating systems (as far as the market is concerned).

Arguably Windows 8 is more of a failure than Vista, especially where the UI is concerned. Just to have Windows 7 only be the thorn XP was would mean Windows 10 has to be a major success, not just "It is now good enough" as far as the UI. So far they just have no shown that to us. In the end something drastic would have to be done to dethrone Windows 7.

When I mean drastic I do not then mean something to force consumers to upgrade. We have seen where that gets them. Something drastic as in a miracle UI that will just blow everyone away!

 

I don't think they need to blow people away, I think they just need to include a familiar legacy interface.

 

Bah... 8 GB or RAM

 

I've seen Windows 10 being pushed as the OS that will cater to users' main complaints ie Start Screen (I personally love Windows 8.1 and the Start Screen), while not really addressing the speed of the OS. Is it safe to assume the OS will be just as fast if not faster than Windows 8? Is that a good thing to assume it will have? As we saw with Vista, it was a complete travesty. 7 fixed almost everything about it but 8 became an even faster and lighter OS, so to speak...

 

The difference between Windows XP and Windows XP SP3 is greater than the difference between Windows 8.1 and Windows 10. I wouldn't worry about anything slowing down. So far everything is in the same vein as Windows 8.1, just adding a few features and tweaking things compared to the previous OS.

 

Vista becoming stable, possibly. But well accepted? Really? There's a difference between "selling more than XP in 2009 when it was the only option on most machines" and "well accepted". IMO it never shed its initial reputation.

That said, I likely will be helping restore a Windows Vista machine to service this weekend, with the goal of it at least partially supplanting a Windows 8 machine. Though it's only partially due the owner preferring Vista to 8.

In terms of hardware requirements (as well as security), true. That the official requirements for XP include 64 MB of RAM is laughable to anyone who's ever seen a fresh XP SP3 install, which uses at least twice if not three times that.

I do like that Microsoft is remembering that there are people who still use a mouse and keyboard with Windows 10.

 

Even Windows 7 had a terrible time trying to knock XP off the block, in fact couldn't, let alone Vista being competition. By the time Vista started I accepted Windows 7 was well entrenched and accepted as the better option after XP. Essentially Vista was too little and way too late in becoming acceptable.

Windows 8.0 was just designed as a UI to fail, despite all the advice and warnings. The update 8.1 was a very slight improvement but way too little in that respect and had a lot of its own issues with hardware. Both versions have left OEMs out in the cold and while yes the industry was in for an adjustment these two OS's have devastated the landscape.

Windows 10 scares me, while I can hold on too 2020 and maybe beyond where e industry be? Hopefully the holograph thing will take off and inject some life to new hardware. Hopefully the UI will improve, even if not maybe third parties can make it acceptable. About the only good I see is if something does wake up the hardware upgrade requirements then there may be a lot of antiquated machines needing replacement.

 

Sorry, all this means is that you clearly don't know what you are doing. You will never get "messages from MS" asking you to call any phone numbers, ever. Either you had downloaded a virus-infested ISO, or you installed a virus after installing Windows 7. None of this has anything whatsoever to do with MS.

 

Actually, you did...

Regardless, you should wipe the drive and start fresh. And I mean "from a blank drive fresh".

Good luck.

 

1. adwcleaner
2. Malwarebytes
3. AVZ
4. Anvirus
5. any free antiviirus like dr.web cureit
6. reset router if you had naked asses all over browser instead of site
7. clear browser and DNS cache + temp folder
8. Use addon WOT ALWAYS
9. This may not help

 

lol+

But it seems like there will be some advancements after the ridiculous w8 metro-only tragedy. Have tried 10, looking forward to test it again when it gets closer to release.

 

Well you guys need to realize fact that new windows since 8 ,8.1, is now like operating system in smartphones because now Microsoft makes windows very very low demand for HW .. as for win 7 and older u need PC with higher HW specs ..
Win 8 /8.1 smoothly runs on tablets .. even with atom cpus .. minimum 1GB RAM..that's amazing
Win 7 simply won't run nicely on mid/low range small tablets (which are designed for win)
And win 10 will be even less HW demanding... (i hope)

 

That means jack. I've benchmarked my triple booting system. 8.1 is still considerably slower than 7, and 7 considerably slower than XP, which is why people still cling onto XP for performance and speed. I wager 10 will have a lighter install base, but still be considerably slower than 8.1!

What is needed for performance increase to match XP again, Microsoft's moment in the light, is a brand new kernel under the hood (not just some renumbering and minor iterations). How can one expect the same kernel that's been around since Vista and sequentially more bloated with each sequel OS (ie. 7/8.1/10), to outperform Windows XP let alone the OS that came before it?

 

Which is strange since quick googling doesn't show people running into that at all.


Win7/8.1 are barely within margin of error, and anytime they aren't, 8.1 is faster.

http://www.itpro.co.uk/desktop-software/21919/windows-81-vs-windows-7-which-is-best-for-you

So, I dunno.

 

Fake. Where's XP in all of this? (B/c if it were included, the bar would be at least 3X as tall as W7). And, I'm supposed to believe some guy paid by you-know-who over my own personal results...

 

Hard to find any kind of modern XP benchmarks anymore. I guess once an OS is 14 years old and EOL people stop caring?



http://www.techradar.com/news/softw...ws-compared-windows-7-vs-vista-vs-xp-615167/8

"The good news is that you won't have to spend long agonising over the whole 'XP or Vista?' decision, because Windows 7 generally outdoes them both. "

 

am not saying about speed or boot speed but hardware demand.. when u install XP it is nice and fast but gradually gets slower and slower... and hungry for RAM
I would really try play with that acer full windows tablet with atom and 1G RAM how it performs.. (speed stability)

 

And yeah you comparing applications running same , no difference at all.. so win 8/8.1 is cool ..no need go backwards ppl will go forward.. (or what will be served to them)

 

Well XP is a 32 bit OS and with each releases of MS OS's the 64 bit users % increases. Going from a 32 to 64 bit OS increases the multi-tasking capabilities of the OS. The application world is moving to apps with a smaller footprint (Web apps and Metro/Modern apps). Even Intel is concerned less with making faster processors to concentrating on making more energy efficient processors. When the Haswell came out desktop users weren't happy about the little performance increase over the Ivy bridge.